What is the purpose of state-of-nature reasoning? Drawing on either Hobbes and Rousseau, discuss the purpose of engaging in state-of-nature thought experiments. What do Hobbes or Rousseau hope to gain by such speculation? Critically assess their arguments: would the "state of nature" be like Hobbes (or Rousseau) describe it? Would a more accurate description of the state of nature have different political implications?
The purpose of this essay is to figure out how descriptions of the state of nature have political implications.
Instructions
Read the assigned chapters of Hobbes' Leviathan or Rousseau's Discourse on the Origins of Inequality. (Focus on only one of the two thinkers).
Do some research about the interpretations of those works. This research is intended to help you interpret the texts themselves; it should not be used as a substitute for reading the texts and engaging with their arguments. Note also that scholars differ in their interpretations.
Decide on a thesis. For example, you might think that state-of-nature reasoning is intended to establish historical truths (e.g., Rousseau believed that this is likely what happened in the distant past) or not; or that such reasoning is supposed to help establish the nature of our political obligations; or that such reasoning is intended to establish what our natural desires are; or to make a point in some contemporary political controversy; or something of the sort. What are the political implications of their state of nature descriptions?
Consider how Rousseau or Hobbes use a description of the state of nature to accomplish that purpose, using citations to their work. What do they emphasize? What are the political implications of their descriptions? Does their particular description of the state of nature justify any particular kind of political regime, approaches to conflict, etc? Ground your arguments in their texts.
Critically assess their arguments: are their assumptions about human equality correct? Are their assumptions about human desires and rationality accurate? Consider also potential responses: how would Hobbes (or Rousseau) respond?
*Consider how a different description of the state of nature (e.g., your own) might have different political implications.
Lewis, Thomas J. 2003. Recognizing rights: Hobbes on the authority of mothers and conquerors. Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (1):39-60. Link.
Abstract. This article follows Hobbes’s distinction between man as the artificer of a commonwealth and man as the material of the commonwealth, by exploring the meaning of natural right and consent from the perspective of an artificer or potential sovereign. From this perspective, natural rights are transformed from alleged attributes of humans into decisions by a victor in war to treat the defeated as if they had natural rights. Similarly, consent is transformed from actions of subjects or citizens into a decision by a victor to recognize the defeated as if they had a right to consent and to treat them as if they had consented. Moreover, Hobbes’s concept of a commonwealth by institution is understood as a definitional standard for the creation of commonwealths by force or acquisition, rather than as a possible historical event. Hobbes sought to explain and substantiate this view of natural right and consent by comparing the emergence of political authority from victory in war to the emergence of authority of a mother over her infant in a state of nature. According to Hobbes, just as maternal authority rests on a mother’s recognition of the right of her infant to consent, political authority rests on the victor’s recognition of the right of the defeated to consent. The practical policy thrust of Hobbes’s thought emerges from his comparison of the authority of mothers and conquerors. Comments: A useful discussion of the notion of "consent" in Hobbes. Suggests that consent must be understood as an attitude the ruler takes towards the subjects, not so much as a specific action that the subjects take authorizing the ruler.
Ashcraft, Richard (1971). Hobbes's Natural Man: A Study in Ideology Formation. Journal of Politics 33 (4): pp. 1076-1117. Link.
This article shows how Hobbes' use of the concept of the "state of nature" overturned the common presuppositions of political philosophy at the time Leviathan was published. It suggests that Hobbes managed to redefine what "natural" meant by drawing, among other things, on reports of native life in the Americas. Very clearly written.
This book is a very careful reconstruction of Hobbes's argument using the tools of modern game theory. Hampton argues that Hobbes's argument, though powerful, is ultimately flawed - either inconsistent with his psychology or consistent with his psychology but unable to establish the necessity of an absolute sovereign. An excerpt from the book is reprinted in The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.
Gauthier criticizes Hampton, arguing that she does not take seriously enough the idea of a social contract, and hence too quickly dismisses Hobbes's argument. Hampton replies here.
Gauthier, David (1969). The Logic of Leviathan: The Moral and Political Theory of Thomas Hobbes (Oxford: Oxford University Press).LinkLibrary Catalog.
Cranston, Maurice William. 1972. Hobbes and Rousseau: A Collection of Critical Essays. 1st ed. Garden City, N.Y: Anchor Books. Library catalog.
Patrick Riley (1973). "Rousseau as a Theorist of National and International Federalism." Publius, Vol. 3, No. 1., pp. 5-17. Link.
Plattner, M. F. (1979). Rousseau's State of Nature: An Interpretation of the Discourse on Inequality (p. 137). Northern Illinois University Press.
Most books I found on Rousseau are either on Rousseau on general, with little information on his Discourse on Inequality or they are more about his Social Contract. This book is specific on Rousseau's State of Nature, which I found very handy, although it is quite detailed and I recommand the last 2 chapters.
Table of Contents
The purpose of this essay is to figure out how descriptions of the state of nature have political implications.
Instructions
- Read the assigned chapters of Hobbes' Leviathan or Rousseau's Discourse on the Origins of Inequality. (Focus on only one of the two thinkers).
- Do some research about the interpretations of those works. This research is intended to help you interpret the texts themselves; it should not be used as a substitute for reading the texts and engaging with their arguments. Note also that scholars differ in their interpretations.
- Decide on a thesis. For example, you might think that state-of-nature reasoning is intended to establish historical truths (e.g., Rousseau believed that this is likely what happened in the distant past) or not; or that such reasoning is supposed to help establish the nature of our political obligations; or that such reasoning is intended to establish what our natural desires are; or to make a point in some contemporary political controversy; or something of the sort. What are the political implications of their state of nature descriptions?
- Consider how Rousseau or Hobbes use a description of the state of nature to accomplish that purpose, using citations to their work. What do they emphasize? What are the political implications of their descriptions? Does their particular description of the state of nature justify any particular kind of political regime, approaches to conflict, etc? Ground your arguments in their texts.
- Critically assess their arguments: are their assumptions about human equality correct? Are their assumptions about human desires and rationality accurate? Consider also potential responses: how would Hobbes (or Rousseau) respond?
*Consider how a different description of the state of nature (e.g., your own) might have different political implications.Resources
- Lewis, Thomas J. 2003. Recognizing rights: Hobbes on the authority of mothers and conquerors. Canadian Journal of Political Science 36 (1):39-60. Link.
Abstract. This article follows Hobbes’s distinction between man as the artificer of a commonwealth and man as the material of the commonwealth, by exploring the meaning of natural right and consent from the perspective of an artificer or potential sovereign. From this perspective, natural rights are transformed from alleged attributes of humans into decisions by a victor in war to treat the defeated as if they had natural rights. Similarly, consent is transformed from actions of subjects or citizens into a decision by a victor to recognize the defeated as if they had a right to consent and to treat them as if they had consented. Moreover, Hobbes’s concept of a commonwealth by institution is understood as a definitional standard for the creation of commonwealths by force or acquisition, rather than as a possible historical event. Hobbes sought to explain and substantiate this view of natural right and consent by comparing the emergence of political authority from victory in war to the emergence of authority of a mother over her infant in a state of nature. According to Hobbes, just as maternal authority rests on a mother’s recognition of the right of her infant to consent, political authority rests on the victor’s recognition of the right of the defeated to consent. The practical policy thrust of Hobbes’s thought emerges from his comparison of the authority of mothers and conquerors.Comments: A useful discussion of the notion of "consent" in Hobbes. Suggests that consent must be understood as an attitude the ruler takes towards the subjects, not so much as a specific action that the subjects take authorizing the ruler.
- Ashcraft, Richard (1971). Hobbes's Natural Man: A Study in Ideology Formation. Journal of Politics 33 (4): pp. 1076-1117. Link.
This article shows how Hobbes' use of the concept of the "state of nature" overturned the common presuppositions of political philosophy at the time Leviathan was published. It suggests that Hobbes managed to redefine what "natural" meant by drawing, among other things, on reports of native life in the Americas. Very clearly written.- Hampton, Jean (1986). Hobbes and the Social Contract Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
This book is a very careful reconstruction of Hobbes's argument using the tools of modern game theory. Hampton argues that Hobbes's argument, though powerful, is ultimately flawed - either inconsistent with his psychology or consistent with his psychology but unable to establish the necessity of an absolute sovereign. An excerpt from the book is reprinted in The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau.- Gauthier, David (1999). Hobbes's Social Contract. Originally appeared in Nous 22 (1988), pp. 71-82. Reprinted in The Social Contract Theorists: Critical Essays on Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau (Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 1999), pp. 59-71. Link.
Gauthier criticizes Hampton, arguing that she does not take seriously enough the idea of a social contract, and hence too quickly dismisses Hobbes's argument. Hampton replies here.- Plattner, M. F. (1979). Rousseau's State of Nature: An Interpretation of the Discourse on Inequality (p. 137). Northern Illinois University Press.
Most books I found on Rousseau are either on Rousseau on general, with little information on his Discourse on Inequality or they are more about his Social Contract. This book is specific on Rousseau's State of Nature, which I found very handy, although it is quite detailed and I recommand the last 2 chapters.